Law School Discussion

Quote from: Citylaw on May 13, 2014, 03:41:21 PM

I think it has much more to do with economics than hand holding. If schools routinely failed out 33% of their class they would lose large amounts of tuition money. Again, proving the point no school wants to kick students out removing one student can result in a loss of 60k to 80k over two years.

I don't think anyone was ever trying to argue that they "want" to fail them out
just that (for whatever reason) they DO

Well, I would argue that they don't fail them out "for whatever reason", they fail them out because they aren't meeting the minimum acceptable standards. If someone can't pass the first year courses, they're unlikely to pass the bar.

Law school attrition should probably be higher than it currently is. There were multiple people at my school who scraped by with barely acceptable grades, graduated, and never passed the bar. I'm not sure the school did them any favors by allowing them to repeat failed courses and continue.   

I posted a link to this article in another forum, but am reposting here.

Apparently, despite all the handwringing law school attrition it is at an historic low. It was very high in the 60's, dropped to 20% by 1975, and has not gone above 10% since 1994.

Grade inflation? Better academic support? A more qualified applicant pool? I don't know.

I remember my Con Law prof (an Ivy League grad) saying that 1/3 attrition was expected when he was in law school. Maybe our increasing sense of entitlement has convinced us that we deserve a J.D., and we balk at the idea of being told "no".

http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2013/02/what-has-happened-to-law-school-attrition.html

Citylaw brings up some good points.

Attrition rates have to be separated into academic/non-academic attrition, otherwise they make no sense. For example, I graduated from a part-time program where many of the students were balancing jobs and families along with law school. Our academic attrition was pretty low, but we had lots of people drop out because they couldn't handle the pressure, the expense, or they transferred.

Of course, at some lower ranked schools academic attrition is high because they're admitting people who didn't get in anywhere else. There are two ways to look at this practice. The conventional wisdom seems to be that these students are being ripped off by being admitted then failed out.

The thing I don't like about that theory is that it assumes that people have no personal agency whatsoever. No personal responsibility, no decision making power.

No one forces anyone to go to law school, and the requirements and expectations are available to anyone who takes five seconds to google them. Another view is that these schools are giving people an opportunity that they wouldn't normally have. And yes, there is some risk involved. But if the student works hard and dedicates themselves they will likely graduate, pass the bar, and realize their dreams.

Remember, a large majority of the people who begin law school will graduate and become lawyers. I meet lawyers literally every single day who couldn't get admitted to high ranked schools, went to a low ranked schools, and are successful practicing attorneys. I know quite a few who put their T1 counterparts to shame. It's all about the level of dedication you're willing to invest.   

 

BTW, which state's bar results are you waiting for?

FYI Maintain. Hofstra's student-faculty ratio has dropped from 15.1 to 18.2. Thats about a 20% drop.

That means a 1L course would go from having 100 students to having 120 students. I doubt if that makes much difference.

But I agree with you that Hofstra is overpriced.